GA Democrat Introduces Bill to Regulate the Sex Life of Men.

I thought the Democrats have been running on keeping the government out of their sex life and their bodies???? Did they just wake up one day and say
no we want the government to run every aspect of what we can and cannot do with our bodies.... including what we eat.... remember whats his face wants
us to eat only veggies.

Sorry for the late reply... got a lot happening around these parts lately.

If we are just aspects of a vaster organic animal system that has developed a strong physical need to have intercourse and produce copies of
ourselves so that they too can do the same, pushing our animal dna though the ages, then why not, if we can even consider it, try to make a change. If
we take this atheistic perspective then what is the problem?

The problem is that we all do not agree on that atheistic perspective.

This is true. However, I have difficulty with basing laws on religious values, especially Federal law. Atheism is a religious bias; it is the belief
that there is no God, and as such is a belief concerning God. That's a wide net, but it is the only one that fits in the context of freedom of
religion. If one has freedom of religion and atheism is not a religion, one is not free to choose to disbelieve in some form of God. I support
everyone's right to believe as they will concerning such, including atheists.

There is also the ''religious'' view point that ''humans'' are different from the rest of the animal kingdom, that we are imbued with an
essence that is not found in other critters. This perspective can and does hold to the ''we better not through a monkey wrench'' into the naturally
God given plan for our cycles through the ages.

While I make no secret of the fact that I am a Christian, and I do believe the Bible supports my feelings on this subject, my views on abortion are
not from the Bible nor a pulpit. They are based on two things: the scientific truth that the child/zygote/fetus/embryo is indeed human, is indeed a
separate individual from the mother (it has unique DNA), and it is indeed alive; and on a moral belief that all human life is worthy of protection.

That is why I have no issue with birth control, including the "morning after" pill. At that point, there is nothing present except a group of 16 or so
cells. There are no developing organs, including a brain; there is no mechanism known or suspected to allow pain to exist. I have some minor concerns
about the morning after pill encouraging promiscuity, but that is a different subject and frankly, one I am torn on. Who are we, really, to determine
the life choices of others, even if we disagree greatly? I support legalized (and rigidly controlled for public health reasons) prostitution; how
hypocritical of me would it be to then oppose the morning after pill because of a belief it might lead to promiscuity?

But it is also the reason I am so vehemently against abortion after the first trimester, and certainly into the third. No human should have the right
to inflict pain, suffering and death on another. The decision to abort should be made as soon as possible and with full understanding of the
consequences, to alleviate as much pain and suffering as possible to both mother and child. Many mothers who have had an abortion are saddled with
extreme guilt afterwards, and the procedure can cause a woman to become sterile... even a natural miscarriage can do that.

In short, I reject your attribution to religion as a consideration in the abortion debate. Perhaps some do use it, but not me, and I don't think even
a majority do. It is instead an attempt to conflate two issues to share the ire from one with the other.

I had a suspicion that your objection to abortion was based more on ''humanitarian'' impulses than on religious grounds and that one is more
difficult for me to take an opposing position, and I suppose that we may not differ as much as might be expected.

I guess that much of my position is based on my own desire to not even think about it. Being male, and well into my 70s it is not a personal situation
that will arise that I myself will have any opportunity or reason to even deal with. It is all on an intellectual level and at this point not one that
I see as being resolvable. So at that point, I simply defer to any people involved with the decision that they face. It should be their decision on
how to advance. Not mine and not the governments. Or should it?

I had a suspicion that your objection to abortion was based more on ''humanitarian'' impulses than on religious grounds and that one is more
difficult for me to take an opposing position, and I suppose that we may not differ as much as might be expected.

I'll admit there are some who take a religious position; I am simply not one of them. I tend to think they are few in number, just as I think those
who take the position that any abortion should be allowed at any time are few in number. It is my admittedly anecdotal experience that most fall
somewhere in between.

I believe that everyone should be free to conduct their lives without government regulation. That's a simple statement, but it brings up some
complicated issues. For example, should I be free to steal from my neighbor because I want more money than I am willing to spend time earning?
Obviously no, because that would infringe on my neighbpr's right to be free to run their own life. Likewise, I should not be free to take the life of
someone else, barring self-defense, for the same reason. We have government rules, aka laws, that specify these limits.

I see abortion as no different. The child is not a part of the woman's body... it is a distinct human being once it is fertilized. Nature has seen fit
to saddle the woman, and only the woman, with pregnancy for nine months after fertilization, and society has seen fit to saddle both her and the
father (if known) with responsibility for this developing life for another 18 years. The societal burden can be neutralized easily enough; that is
called adoption. But the natural burden not so much.

That thinking would indicate that any abortion would be the improper taking of another life and that any abortion should be disallowed. However, we
then go to the issue of fairness and practicality. Fairness is one of my moral tenets... all laws must be as fair as possible. I see no fairness in
any law which would punish a woman for ending a pregnancy, so I cannot support those. Compassion for the woman, who is also besieged with hormonal
changes that cause mental distress during pregnancy, also means that I cannot simply deny all abortions. We know from past experience that such will
inevitably lead to women harming themselves in order to self-abort the pregnancy.

So it becomes a balancing act: where does the woman's right to live unencumbered with a pregnancy end and the child's right to life begin? I say with
sentience and viability. Before sentience there is no pain and almost no investment in life on the part of the child. Without viability, the
discomfort of the woman is for naught.

I have to mention that I often wonder where that term "humanitarian" got it's start. Think about it. If vegetarians eat only vegetables, what do
humanitarians eat?

I guess that much of my position is based on my own desire to not even think about it.

It is indeed a troubling subject, especially for a man. I don't think any man really wants to be that deeply involved in anything that concerns
childbirth... I know I didn't when my children were in utero. I was actually fondly thinking about the good old days when men sat in the waiting room
handing out cigars and, while the poor women were sedated none at all, had all the drugs they wanted.

But I don't want to think about someone gunning down another over an argument either. Not wanting to think about something where a life is at stake is
not something I consider good cause to ignore. And I wholeheartedly reject the notion that men are not affected and thus should have no say in our
laws; Neither am I affected when someone is shot in Chicago, but I still have a say in whether murder is illegal in Chicago. In the end, we are all
responsible for our own laws.

Is this really America? The amount of tit for tat that's taken place is rediculous.

How are these things comparable? She will make the argument it's hyperbole to prove a point, but it's really what she wants. Her and Cher should
move to the amazon together with my EX and talk about escaping the dangers of penisis while eating bon bons. Although Idk if they have enough D
batteries for all their toys in the jungle.

a reply to: TheRedneck
If you get to this Red, I offer warning as I veer almost wildly or circuitously in trying to get to the bottom of my own stance.

I respect the position you hold on fertilization being the cornerstone of a person though I hold differently. I appreciate it for it's moral regard
though for me it assumes a factual belief that I find myself not capable of achieving. Rather I hold that becoming human is an incremental process
both physically and spiritually.
From the physical perspective I question at what point the ''human experience'' is begun, that is at what point does the fertilized egg begin the
process of ''experiencing'' and hence beginning that incremental process.

Sideline here. How many of these fertilization s are the result of a desire for a baby and now many the result of people just wanting to have sex? For
those who want a baby the problem of abortion is in most cases moot. However for all the others it raises the question of just how is it that what is
the most primal drive for so many of us is the one that results in another person and all the human bonds it develops.

I think that the sex drive likely is so primal that it overrides the desire for or against children. You know? Way back human animals just as all
other animals in the kingdom are driven to sex with no idea that it was how offspring were developed. It was only after ''how long'' that people
figured it out and began to place restrictions on it. It's our bodies and the neural paths that drive us to sex more than the desire for off spring an
in so many cases despite the knowledge of that potential.

From this perspective, humans are nothing more than the result of ancient primal urges developed into all species by the cellular need to replicate
themselves. This is what I get from what I have seen as our sex drive. As we really do not know all that much about pre-civilization times and when
and how we figured out where babies come from we can only suppose that the drive was strong in men and suppose that it was likewise there in women as
well. Once we figured out where babies come from we began to add all the social systems into the equation to control it. Laws and morals and stuff.

And I suppose that this was how we made attempts to consider ourselves ''more'' or '' other'' than the rest of the animal kingdom. Which by the way I
think we are but that is a much broader conversation than this one.

So here we are today, from what I understand, finding ourselves for the first time in our history with the ability to abort the unborn. At least
modern history that is. There may have been practices that were used in earlier times but I don't know about that at all. But for now, I see our
ability to abort safely and easily as one more step in that process of making distinctions between ourselves and the rest of the kingdom. One more
step in our process of determining what it is to be human.

And not that I favor a full jump into the pond either. But now that we can abort safely it almost forces us to reconsider those older moral positions
that we take for granted, all based on ancient attempts from people millennia ago making their own attempts to define what is human.

I see abortion almost as a grace period, I time to reflect on just why that baby should be born. Should that baby be born just because of a million
year old primal urge coupled with mind numbing pheromones or should that baby be born because the mother and the father WANT that baby to be born.
And that to me makes for a better human, for the parents and for the child born to people who really want it. Who love it before it is born.

How is representative Kendrik's bill related to saving a baby's life, like the legislation she's responding to does? It sounds like she's just ANGRY
that babies can't be murdered, after they have a heartbeat!

The New and Improved Democratic party is proving to be disgusting on so many levels.

-CareWeMust

I think we men have put up with enough BS from women by now...

Making laws like this is even more stupid and degrading towards men than the fact many women make their significant other (also known as their
"wallet") have a vasectomy.

For anyone wondering, here's the correct answer to any suggestions of a vasectomy:

"No, I might decide do ditch you and have a second litter with someone else".

I respect the position you hold on fertilization being the cornerstone of a person though I hold differently. I appreciate it for it's moral
regard though for me it assumes a factual belief that I find myself not capable of achieving. Rather I hold that becoming human is an incremental
process both physically and spiritually.
From the physical perspective I question at what point the ''human experience'' is begun, that is at what point does the fertilized egg begin the
process of ''experiencing'' and hence beginning that incremental process.

Then we actually hold similar views.

I was speaking scientifically, not morally. Yes, it is alive. Yes, it is human. Yes, it is individual. But whether or not it is sentient is
where I draw my final distinction. Obviously, that implanted cluster of cells fits the first three criteria, but I do not believe it is at that time
sentient. My personal view may be that it is wrong to take even that life; my practical view is somewhat different. It would, IMO, be hypocritical of
me to claim such extreme compassion for the unborn child and simultaneously deny that compassion to the prospective mother. I do not like being
hypocritical.

The issue becomes, then, at what point does sentience begin? I would say it is likely that there is no singular point in time we can point to with
certainty, and likely no specific point in time that is consistent for all. Practicality urges me to accept your position that abortion needs to
function as a type of "grace period"; we all know (or should know) that some women in desperation will try to self-abort with disastrous results that
behoove no one.

In a long-winded way, I am not for making abortion illegal. I simply wish to have all parties' rights considered. During the first trimester, it is
fairly apparent, to me anyway, that the woman's desires should override those of a child who is not yet sentient. An hour before delivery, abortion is
indeed murder (and as with murder, can be seen as subject to self-defense, as in the life of the mother takes priority). In between... well, there's
where we have disagreement, and where I see flexibility as a good thing. After all, we are making decisions based on incomplete information. When
exactly does the child reach sentience? Can we really know?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.